I never said 'last mile' I described both the last mile and getting the data to the NOC. All of those rental fees are paid for at cost + 15%

Even if those 3rd party aggregration links are fully saturated it makes no difference. If it did, then Bell didn't do their homework on submitting their costs for these tarrifs. If that's the case they should apply for updated GAS tarrifs instead of trying to both double dip and set retail rates for their competitors via UBB.

You're lacking full knowledge of how Bell's GAS access works apparently.

This isn't about what's reasonable. This is about Bell imposing additional retail based costs when 3rd party ISP have already paid for their bandwidth.

1. They pay Bell a fee per subscriber and this fee has been deemed by the CRTC to be 'fair and just' as per tarrif.

2. They pay a fee for each 1 Gb/s aggregration link to their NOC, again as per tarrif.

Now that the packets are in the hands of the ISP, so to speak, they should be able to decide how to manage that traffic. This includes paying for the upstream transit, their own routing gear, etc.
So why does Bell get to double dip and tack on an additional cost for something that the ISP delivers. Is Bell going to pay the upstream transit?

"And yet, we hadn't really heard of it actually working anywhere... until now."

Really, you have never heard of what basically amounts to a crude variation of a "salami attack" Mike. I'll leave it to interested readers to find the pertinent examples. This technique has been around for a lot of years in different forms.

This is better referred to as a carpet bombing approach. And given that they're pocketing 50% of the fines, why would they stop? So who authorized these clowns to to extort in the first place? Or can anyone start a business like this?

Say what now? You've just described the ratchet effect. These 'anti-counterfitting' negotiations include so much copyright measures it should be called the pro-copyrightholders treaty. Here in Canada we already have had some semblance of public consultations on copyright. That feedback from thousands of citizens basically made it clear we don't need more draconian measure like 3 accusations and you're out. Yet, according to you, in order to be 'in-line' with everyone else, our government should institute copyright law against the wishes of it's citizens?